ABCDEFGH917 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & Anr. v. KHAJANSINGH [M. R. SHAH & Anr.

ABCDEFGH914SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.361 of2023.From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2017 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.6719 of 2015.Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, RahulPandey, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. SujeetaSrivastava, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Smita Maan, Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Shekhar Yadav, Ms.Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Rachita Kadyan, N. S. Vashist, Gagan Gupta, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, Advs.for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered byM. R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WritPetition (C) No. 6719 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed thesaid writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiatedunder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,1894”) with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsedunder section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparencyin Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(hereinafte referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT ofDelhi and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt, it appears that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in thecase of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and has observedthat though the possession of the land in question was taken over onspecific dates mentioned in the returns /counter affidavit but as thecompensation was not tendered, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed. Therefore, even the High Court has also not disputed that the originalwrit petitioners – original landowners were dispossessed on specific ABCDEFGH915dates mentioned in the returns / counter affidavit. Even in the writ petitionalso, the original writ petitioners have specifically admitted that theywere dispossessed. However, they claimed the lapse of acquisition solelyon the ground that the compensation was not paid / tendered relyingupon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. (supra), which decision of this Court has beenspecifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the caseof Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020)8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of thisCourt has observed and held as under:-“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in PuneMunicipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled andall other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [PuneMunicipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decisionin Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji NagarResidential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannotbe said to be laying down good law, is overruled and otherdecisions following the same are also overruled. In IndoreDevelopment Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], theaspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether“or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed forconsideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, inthe light of the discussion in the present judgment.366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answerthe questions as under:366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in casethe award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date ofcommencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse ofproceedings. Compensation has to be determined under theprovisions of the 2013 Act.366.2. In case the award has been passed within thewindow period of five years excluding the period covered byan interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continueas provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. KHAJANSINGH AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.] ABCDEFGH916SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) betweenpossession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as“and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings underSection 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inactionof authorities for five years or more prior to commencementof the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken norcompensation has been paid. In other words, in case possessionhas been taken, compensation has not been paid then there isno lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possessionhas not been taken then there is no lapse.366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensationin court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in theproviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited withrespect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries(landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisitionunder Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled tocompensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest underSection 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit ofcompensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of landacquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect tothe majority of holdings for five years or more, compensationunder the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as onthe date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 ofthe 1894 Act.366.5. In case a person has been tendered thecompensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed underSection 24(2) due to non-payment or non- deposit ofcompensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete bytendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landownerswho had refused to accept compensation or who soughtreference for higher compensation, cannot claim that theacquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the2013 Act. ABCDEFGH917GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. KHAJANSINGH AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act isto be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section24(1)(b).366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing ofinquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed ontaking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the landvests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is nolapse under Section 24(2).366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for adeemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authoritieshave failed due to their inaction to take possession and paycompensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act cameinto force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with theauthority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistenceof interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in thecomputation of five years.366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give riseto new cause of action to question the legality of concludedproceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to aproceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claimsand does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allowlandowners to question the legality of mode of taking possessionto reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation inthe treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”2.2 Even as per the law laid down by this Court in the case ofIndore Development Authority (supra), for lapsing of acquisitionunder Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, namely, possessionnot taken and compensation not tendered are required to be satisfied. Itis observed and held that even if one of the conditions is not satisfied, inthat case also, there shall not be any lapsing under Section 24(2) of theAct, 2013. In the present case, admittedly the possession of the land inquestion was taken over on the different dates as mentioned in the returns/ counter affidavit before the High Court. ABCDEFGH918SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.3. In view of the above and applying the law laid down by thisCourt in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainableand the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordinglyquashed and set aside. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Ankit GyanAppeal allowed.(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)